Predictors of Psychotropic Polypharmacy Among Outpatients With Psychiatric Disorders and Intellectual Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study described psychotropic prescription patterns among adults referred to a psychiatric outpatient clinic for individuals with intellectual disability and determined demographic, clinical, and organization-level predictors of receipt of three or more psychotropic medications concurrently (psychotropic polypharmacy). METHODS: To identify predictors of psychotropic polypharmacy, a retrospective chart audit was conducted for patients with intellectual disability referred (N=517) to a specialized psychiatric outpatient clinic between 2005 and 2013. RESULTS: Seventy percent of patients were prescribed at least one psychotropic medication, and 22% received psychotropic polypharmacy. Women, those living in supervised residential settings, and those with a psychiatric diagnosis in two or more diagnostic categories were more likely to receive psychotropic polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is a significant concern for adults with intellectual disability seeking specialized psychiatric services, with multiple contributors to prescribing practices. Both psychiatrists and family physicians can play a role in the judicious use of medications for this vulnerable population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".